110 likes | 125 Views
This presentation discusses the challenges with Leeds Supertram and highlights the economic and social benefits of implementing a tram system. It emphasizes the need to reduce pollution levels and improve transportation options for the community. The proposal includes a simplified track system, low-floor City Class trams, and the involvement of both the private and public sectors. The benefits include reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, better connectivity, and increased investor confidence.
E N D
Leeds Supertram 3 Presentation 12th Dec. 2016 by Lincoln Shields and Colin Dyas
National Audit Office Report (2004) • Tramways too expensive • Optimistic patronage forecasts • CAPEX under estimated • Each with different contract – high legal costs • Economic and social disruption in construction Green Light for Light Rail DfTReport (2011) • Only if costs come down to other EU levels Then came Edinburgh !
Issues for today ? • Pollution • N.I.C.E Report on toxic traffic air pollution: • “public health crisis of our generation”. • Kills over 40,000 pa in UK • Kills c 700 people in Leeds pa. • cost to the NHS £480m pa. • Leeds worst: local smog spot - and third nationally • Leeds will breach limits of air pollution past 2020 • Tyre and tarmac debris more than legal limit of PM10 • Northern Power House • Manchester Metrolink; unlocking economic investment • Buses major source of pollution, don’t get people out of cars • Local Issues • Failed Scott Hall Road Busway ? No change in modal split in 20yrs.
Preston GUILD Line - a new approach • Community support for trams • 80% residents, 75% businesses, 87% in on line poll • Privately promoted • Commercially based • Financially viable • CAPEX reduced • Planning Approach • Council Support • Local Plan 2012-26
GUILD Tramway Economics • 18,000 residents along line will make: • 1.8m trips pa. , >30% from cars • No external trips included • e.g. P+R & Rail, and Deepdale Retail Park uncertain • Revenue based on local bus fares (£1.75/trip) • Capital cost: £25million • 6km line, 4.5km off street • Operating cost c £2m pa. • IRR > 5%pa. • Commercial funds
City Class Tram • 100% flat floor • Low floor 300mm high • Braking • Service = 1.5m/s2 no jerking • Emergency = 3.3m/s2 • No wheel squeal • Sprung wheels= smooth ride • Automatic slip/slide control • No sand needed 8% gradient - 20m reverse curve
Leeds Supertram 2 (2003) • CAPEX • Utility = £100million • Track = £100million • Trams = £70million • Other = £130million • TOTAL= £400 million Cancelled by Chancellor Alistair Darling 2005
Leeds Supertram 3 Prepared by Trampower City Centre Options Tram Stop M621 P+R
Supertram 3 CAPEX LR55 Track simplified OHL City Class trams
The Partnership • Private sector promotes • raises the funds • Constructs • operates • Public sector • Approves (planning permission) • Buys out later, and operates ? • The community • Gets many benefits • Acceptable travel choices • Less toxic air, illness and premature deaths • Less noise and safer streets www.trampower.co.uk
Conclusion • People like trams (Circa 80% support) • Commuters leave cars at home, or Park+Ridethe tram • Reduces traffic (gets people out of cars !) • Complementary management • Tram priorities • Prevent suppressed car trips clogging roads • Less congestion • Better air quality • Improves access and connectivity • Raises investor confidence for other projects